alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED August 5, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

______________________________________________ LINDA JANIECE WRIGHT-MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Dyer Circuit No. 96-234 C.A. No. 02A01-9708-CV-00196 HARVEY GRANVILLE MILLER, Defendant-App

ellant.

__________________________________________________ __________________________ CONCURRENCE IN PART, DISSENT IN PART

______________________ _____________________________________________________ _ I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment o f the trial court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock. The trial court accredited the testimony of Husband’s CPA that without the consolidation of Miller’s assets wi

th those of Heartl

and there was a s

mall loss in Heartland’s book value. The proo f showed that the Heartland increase in book value resulted from the consolidation of Miller’s assets with

those of Heartland. While, as the majority opinion states, the parties agree that Wife contributed during the marriage to the increase in the value of the Heartland stock, I construe this to mean normal increases in value to which Wife could have been said to have lent her assistance in preserving and appreciating the stock. It does not appear that the parties contemplatedthe agreement to apply to an unexpected or fortuitous event, with which the Wife had nothing to do and did not in any manner participate. In Harrison v. Harrison , 912 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. 1995),

our Supreme Court s

tated on this point: The statute does not pe

rmit the conclusion

that any incr ease i n value during marriage constitutes marital property. The increase in val ue cons titutes marital property only when the spouse has substantially contributed to its preservation and appreciation. Id . at 127 (emphasis in original). I do not believe that

the evidence pr

eponderates ag

ainst the trial court’s finding that any increase in value was notmarital property and, therefore

, would affirm the

trial court’s judg

ment.

_________________________________ W. FRANK CRAWFORD, PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)

OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Mark R. Tauscher, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof PLC Systems Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) [Not Applicable];

 

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 11, 2005 |  /s/ Mark R. Tauscher     |   |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                       |  Mark R. Tauscher         |
|                       |  Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 30 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141763) and Amendment No. 307 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.



 


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


December 27, 2016
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  SOUNDING THE ALARM ON SEQUESTRATION

  (Mr. RIGELL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RIGELL. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues this morning to sound 
the alarm of a serious threat facing our country, one that has been 
addressed by this body and now awaits action by the Senate and the 
President. It is not an external threat, but one that is totally within 
our control. Known as sequestration, this sharp severe cut to our 
defense budget can and must be stopped.
  The warnings from the Secretary of Defense and each of our service 
chiefs must be heeded. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, 
described it this way. He said the cuts would do ``severe and 
irreversible damage'' to our Navy.
  Madam Speaker, where is the President's outrage at this prospect? 
Where is his leadership in his role as Commander in Chief?
  The House passed legislation which would stop the cuts. My amendment 
to the National Defense Authorization Act requires the Senate to 
address it head-on.
  Madam Speaker, we've led. I truly believe that we've taken action to 
stop the cuts. The irrefutable truth is that the same is not true of 
the Senate and the administration.
  Now, we have time to do what is right, but that time is short. I call 
on the President and the Senate to do what is right: to lead, to lead 
by example, to bring us together as a nation to stop the cuts. We must 
look to the future and shape the future, not look behind us.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2018392EN.01003601.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/36

---

Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)

(Case T-523/18)

(2018/C 392/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BGCPRO — Application for registration No 9 573 965

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2544/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the Application should be rejected for specific services in class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the Application should be rejected for specific services in class 36;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 74 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-36316) and Amendment No. 543 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.









/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




December 27, 2016
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              SUBSIDIARIES OF
                          GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                         (a Delaware corporation)


                              Jurisdiction of     Names Under Which
Subsidiary                    Incorporation      Company Does Business
----------                    ---------------    ---------------------
Giant Industries
  Arizona, Inc.               Arizona            Giant Refining Company
                                                 Ciniza Pipe Line
                                                   Company
                                                 Giant Transportation
                                                 Giant Service Stations
                                                 Giant Travel Center
                                                 TransWest Tank Lines
  - Ciniza Production
      Company*                New Mexico
  - Giant Stop-N-Go of
      New Mexico, Inc.*       New Mexico
  - San Juan Refining
      Company*                New Mexico
  - Giant Four Corners,
      Inc.*                   Arizona
  - Giant Mid-Continent,
      Inc.*                   Arizona
  - Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*   Arizona            Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                 Mesa Fuel Company
                                                 Tucson Fuel Company
                                                 Firebird Fuel Company
                                                 PFC Lubricants Company
Giant Exploration &
  Production Company          Texas

_______________

*A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6956

JOHN LUCIOUS STAFFORD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. UNKNOWN , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00154

- CMH

- TCB )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. John Lucious Stafford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Lucious Stafford seeks to a ppeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to comply with a court order

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S. C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies thi s standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). W hen the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stafford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
22220

#### State v. Livingston

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 939 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 939

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 6, 2016.
Whereas the United States should lead the world in providing high-quality 
        education and opportunities to its citizens;
Whereas digital skills are essential for education and preparing citizens for 
        the economy of the future;
Whereas, on a daily basis, teachers across the country assign homework that 
        requires Internet access to be completed;
Whereas there are 5 million households with school-age children in the United 
        States that do not have high-speed Internet access at home and fall into 
        what is known as the ``homework gap'';
Whereas a disproportionate number of students without high-speed Internet access 
        at home reside in low-income and minority households;
Whereas students and families in rural areas face additional challenges when 
        homework requires Internet access that is out of reach;
Whereas every student deserves an opportunity at 21st century success;
Whereas participation in the classroom can be improved when all students are 
        equipped with the tools to complete their homework;
Whereas educators can increase the use of cutting-edge education technology and 
        digital learning resources when those resources remain accessible during 
        out-of-school hours;
Whereas data show that students have received lower grades and been unable to 
        complete their assignments because of their lack of Internet access at 
        home;
Whereas improved student access to postsecondary education and workforce 
        opportunities can be made possible by increasing the ability of students 
        to apply for employment, postsecondary education, and financial aid 
        opportunities;
Whereas leaders in the public and private sectors have recognized that the 
        homework gap is an issue of national importance and partnered to find 
        cooperative solutions to address it; and
Whereas instilling digital skills and the knowledge to succeed in the 21st 
        century economy in the Nation's students is vital to the Nation's global 
        competitiveness: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that all 
students should have access to the digital tools necessary to further their 
education and compete in the 21st century economy.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF CAYENNE SOFTWARE, INC.
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE COMPANY'S FORMS 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000880229
<NAME> CAYENNE SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                       868
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,592
<PP&E>                                          21,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           176
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,408)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,394
<SALES>                                          4,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,198
<CGS>                                              812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        49
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        

</TABLE>
November 2021 

There were 10 surveillance inspections conducted at 8 different sites for a total of 89

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures continued to decrease in response to the

colder air temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. Routine harvest continued. No cages were 

confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

December 2020 45 0 23461

January 2021 45 0 23506

February 2021 45 0 23551

March 2021 46 0 23597

April 2021 50 0 23647

May 2021 90 0 23737

June 2021 120 0 23857

July 2021 110 0 23967

August 2021 122 0 24089

September 2021 99 0 24188

October 2021 84 0 24272

November 2021 89 0 24361
#### State v. Gomes

17793

12/14/94

Affirmed
# C_2020240EN.01003603.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/36

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZE v Parlement

(Case T-603/18) (1)

(2020/C 240/48)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
#### State v. Werner

21448

11/12/98

Vacated & Remanded